Ecolog:
Leonard's comments may well get him burned at the stake, but an honest
discussion of his points would well-advised.
I suggest that ecology as a phenomenon is far too complex to be reduced to
mathematics, but a certain amount of counting, even arithmetic, and, where
truly applicable, complex mathematics, when, and only when, it is actually
relevant to reality. Numbers have limitations, just like general
observations do. Still, I do not suggest throwing the mathematics baby out
with the bathwater, only when mathematics are nothing more than bathwater,
to put it politely. As the little book "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics"
says . . .
I strongly suspect (but have no statistical analysis to "prove"), that there
is an unfortunate trend toward numerical bs, largely because ecology has
long been derided by the "harder sciences," resulting in a fit of
overcompensation--"if it takes mathematics to get 'respect,' we'll give 'em
mathematics." Professors and committees expect complex equations, even
algorithms from students if the student expects to "get any respect,"
graduate, or receive a degree.
Is it not ironic that a perceived need for credibility might translate into
actions that undermine, nay, ultimately trash that credibility.
How much about ecology can be understood without mathematics, and then, how
complex need that mathematics be to explain and understand what is going on
in the endlessly-changing processes of life interactions? What do we know?
What don't we know? How do we tell the difference? Is mathematics up to the
job? Does some kind of metamathematics remain to be discovered or developed?
WT
PS:
I have suggested that fuzzy logic/mathematics might be useful tools for
examining complex relationships like those found in ecology (
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol5/iss2/art5/ ), but any logic or device
that brings better understanding of ecosystem processes might prove
adequate. Ecosystem functions may be infinitely more complex than, say,
weather, and nobody has more than a fuzzy handle on that.
"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex... It takes a
touch of genius - and a lot of courage to move in the opposite
direction." --Albert Einstein
----- Original Message -----
From: "Neahga Leonard" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 16, 2012 8:51 AM
Subject: Re: [ECOLOG-L] New blog post- the use of complex equations
decreases the chance that a paper will be cited
Interesting. That article validates a feeling I've had for a long while.
Communication both amongst scientists and between scientists and the rest
of the population is an important issue that needs to be addressed. As
scientists our primary purpose is to explain to others what we learn about
our surroundings. Learning without passing the information on doesn't (in
my opinion) accomplish much and does not add to the repository of knowledge
we all draw upon to move to the next step in learning.
Within the sciences there seems to be a trend, one that begins in school
and is perpetuated in the professional world, of demonstrating one's
intelligence by being almost incomprehensibly complex. This does few
people any good as it can drive even those very interested in what your
topic is away from the subject.
Part of this may be due to the genuine complexity of the subjects we look
at and our desire to capture as much of that intricacy as we can. This is
an admirable goal, but we must keep in mind that most other people have not
looked into our particular subject deeply enough to appreciate the fulness
of what we see and that they may not have the time to do so.
Also, we tend to forget that our most important audience is not other
scientists, but the population at large. Many non-scientists are extremely
curious about the knowledge scientists have to offer, but, even if those
people can access the information (raising the issue of the criminal
expense of scientific papers and journals), what we find is usually not
presented in a way that anyone other than a fellow specialist can
understand it.
Einstein said, “If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it
well enough”. Maybe we as a profession should meditate upon this. Our
goal, after all, is to explain to others.
Neahga Leonard
On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 5:47 AM, David Shiffman
<[email protected]>wrote:
Hello, all!
I wanted to let you know about a new blog post I've written that may be of
interest.
A recent PNAS paper showed that papers including a high density of complex
equations are less likely to be cited than papers with fewer equations.
Their conclusion was that many scientists appear to be unfamiliar with
complex mathematics. This paper prompted 4 replies in the latest issue of
PNAS.
I've summarized all the sides in a blog post, and invited the authors of
each of the papers and replies to participate in a discussion with my
blog's readers. Given that many of you use complex mathematics in your
research, I thought that this might interest you.
Please feel free to join the discussion on the blog either by sharing your
opinion or by responding to my readers' questions.
The post can be found here:
http://www.southernfriedscience.com/?p=13943
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
--
*David Shiffman*
*Ph.D. Student, Research Assistant,*
Abess Center for Ecosystem Science and Policy <http://www.cesp.miami.edu/>
R.J. Dunlap Marine Conservation Program <http://rjd.miami.edu/>
[image: RJD]
*e: *[email protected] | *p: *412.915.2309
*a: *4600 Rickenbacker Cswy, Miami, Florida, 33149
*t: *@WhySharksMatter <http://twitter.com/#!/WhySharksMatter> | *b:
*Southern
Fried Science Blog <http://www.southernfriedscience.com/>
--
Neahga Leonard
*There is not just a whole world to explore, there is a whole universe to
explore, perhaps more than one.*
http://writingfornature.wordpress.com/
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1427 / Virus Database: 2441/5398 - Release Date: 11/16/12
